Anti-Stacking Provision Clause Samples
An Anti-Stacking Provision is a contractual clause designed to prevent a party from combining, or "stacking," multiple claims or sources of damages arising from the same event or breach to increase their total recovery. In practice, this means that if several contractual provisions or insurance policies could apply to a single loss, the affected party cannot claim cumulative damages from each; instead, recovery is limited to the highest applicable amount under one provision or policy. This clause serves to limit the financial exposure of the liable party and ensures that compensation remains fair and proportionate, avoiding excessive or duplicative payouts for the same underlying issue.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 2 times
Anti-Stacking Provision. If, at any time, Licensee discovers that any Licensed Product or the use thereof in the Licensed Field of Use or the practice of any Licensed Patent infringes claims of an unexpired patent or patents other than those in the Licensed Patents, Licensee may, if it has not already done so, negotiate with the owner of such patents for a license on such terms as Licensee deems appropriate. Should the license with the owner of such patents require the payment of royalties or other consideration to such owner then the royalties otherwise payable under this Agreement may be reduced by the amount payable [*****] to the other patent owner(s), but in no event shall the royalties payable under this Agreement be reduced by more than [*****]. To clarify, Licensee and UABRF agree that under no circumstance shall UABRF’s royalty amount under Section 5.5 be less than (a) [*****] when the Licensee or one of its Affiliates is the entity generating Net Sales and (b) [*****] when a Sublicensee is the entity generating Net Sales. If a combination product incorporates a product based on a patent (other than a Licensed Patent) to which Licensee has secured rights via an agreement with the patent owner and the owner of such patent requires the payment of royalties or other consideration to such owner, then the royalties otherwise payable under this Agreement may be reduced by the amount payable [*****] to the other patent owner(s), but in no event shall the royalties payable under this Agreement be reduced by more than [*****].
Anti-Stacking Provision. In the event that Company is legally required to make royalty payments to one or more third parties whose patent rights dominate the Patent(s) and would therefore be infringed by the exercise of the license rights granted in Paragraph 2.1, or whose patent rights Company is required to license to obtain Regulatory Approval to sell Product, Company may reduce Running Royalties due to CHMC in the same quarterly reporting period by fifty percent(50%), provided, however, that in no event shall the Running Royalties be reduced below half of the applicable Running Royalty in Subections 8.6(i) and (ii) in any quarterly reporting period. In order to exercise its offset rights hereunder, Company must send written notice to CHMC describing the nature and amount of its payment requirements, the identity of the third party and the applicable third party patents promptly after first becoming aware of the requirement to make any such payments. In no event will Company be eligible to reduce the Running Royalties as described in this Paragraph for any payments required to be made by Company to use any third party biological research tools.
Anti-Stacking Provision. If access to a Third Party’s IP is required for exploitation of the Products, and in such circumstances Del Mar or its Affiliates pay royalties to a Third Party for any Product for which royalties are also due to Valent for Net Sales, Del Mar will have the right to deduct from the royalties owed to Valent on account of Net Sales [*]
Anti-Stacking Provision. If access to a Third Party’s IP is required for exploitation of the Products, and in such circumstances Del Mar or its Affiliates pay royalties to a Third Party for any Product for which royalties are also due to Valent for Net Sales, Del Mar will have the right to deduct from the royalties owed to Valent on account of Net Sales fifty percent (50%) of the royalties paid to such Third Party for such Product, provided that this reduction in payment to Valent will not exceed five percentage points (5%) of the ten percent (10%) royalties on Net Sales otherwise payable by Del Mar to Valent (i.e., the royalty payable to Valent will be reduced by up to five percent (5%)).
Anti-Stacking Provision. Should Elanco determine that access to Third Party’s patent rights is [***] due to [***] or [***] of [***], Elanco will consult with Licensor before seeking access to such Third Party’s Patent Rights. If Elanco pays compensation to a Third Party for Product for which compensation is also due to Licensor, Elanco shall have the right to deduct from the royalties owed to Licensor, [***] of the royalties to be paid to said Third Party.
Anti-Stacking Provision. 4.5.1 Should access to a Third Person’s patent rights be necessary for development or commercialization of the Product and Lilly and Cardiome reasonably agree that such license is necessary for the development and commercialization of the Product, and if Cardiome or its Affiliates or Sublicensees pay royalties to a Third Person (including [Redacted - Company name]) for Product for which royalties are also due to Lilly, Cardiome shall have the right to deduct from the royalties owed to Lilly, [Redacted — Reduction of royalties payable to Lilly]]
4.5.2 [Redacted — Reduction of royalties payable to Lilly]
4.5.3 [Redacted — Reduction of royalties payable to Lilly]
Anti-Stacking Provision. If either PARTY is required to pay a royalty or royalties to any third party for technology in connection with the manufacture, use, sale or marketing of a PATENT-BASED PRODUCT and/or a PATENT-BASED SERVICE hereunder, the royalty rate payable hereunder shall be reduced by one half (1/2) of the aggregate rate of such third party royalties, but in no event shall the royalty rate be reduced more than fifty percent (50%) under this paragraph. This paragraph shall specifically exclude (that is, shall not be applied to) royalties paid to any party for a claim covering an ACTIVE FUNCTIONAL ELEMENT.